America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 4 years ago by Brewha. 49 replies replies.
Media Lunch Leaks....
victor809 Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
And no, we're not talking about trumpenfurher's depends....

The press secretary, my favorite description of her is ""Press Secretary" Stephanie Grisham, who still has more DUI arrests than press conferences to her name", is apparently upset that the media leaked "off the record" statements to other media outlets during the lunch prior to the SOTU.

In her letter to the media she makes such points as:
"[T]he president of the United States welcomed you to the White House and spent almost two hours answering so many questions that he didn’t eat his own lunch" (oh wah. you don't get to eat during an official event? Has he never led an official event? you don't usually get to eat yourself during those)

"He graciously gave you a couple of items on the record and then spoke frankly, honestly, and most importantly in good faith that it was off the record." (and none of the present media outlets made any mention of anything which was stated "off the record")

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-press-secretary-stephanie-grisham-whines-about-media-lunch-leaks-in-new-leaked-email
opelmanta1900 Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Daily beast, huh? Was the vaginasagainsttrump.com site down or something?
victor809 Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
I mean, are you disputing that the letter exists?
Are you disputing that our press secretary has more DUIs than press conferences?
Or are you disputing that information from that lunch leaked out prior to the SOTU?

Just whining about the media source doesn't put you on strong footing opel.
fishinguitarman Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,148
As usual start your post with an anti American smartazz comment
Abrignac Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,216
victor809 wrote:
I mean, are you disputing that the letter exists?
Are you disputing that our press secretary has more DUIs than press conferences?
Or are you disputing that information from that lunch leaked out prior to the SOTU?

Just whining about the media source doesn't put you on strong footing opel.


I’d be much more concerned with actual DUI convictions instead of arrests. I thought in American one is innocent until proven guilty. Regardless, how does it hamper her ability to do her job. To say such is an attempt at character assignation instead of debating her actual job performance.

Victor, I do consider you a friend, but I also lose a certain amount of respect for you when you use arrest reports to disparage someone without saying whether they were found innocent, guilty or if the charges were dismissed before trial. You’re better than that.
victor809 Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Abrignac wrote:
I’d be much more concerned with actual DUI convictions instead of arrests. I thought in American one is innocent until proven guilty. Regardless, how does it hamper her ability to do her job. To say such is an attempt at character assignation instead of debating her actual job performance.

Victor, I do consider you a friend, but I also lose a certain amount of respect for you when you use arrest reports to disparage someone without saying whether they were found innocent, guilty or if the charges were dismissed before trial. You’re better than that.


Not to point out the obvious, but if you're white and have an arrest record, odds are you were up to some sh#t, even if there wasn't a conviction.

But, to make you feel better, she has one DUI conviction (this is still more than the number of Press Conferences she has to her name). The other was "dropped as part of a plea agreement".. which means she was f$cking drunk.

More interesting, she didn't get her 2013 DUI dropped until she pleaded guilty to her 2015 DUI. So that was 2 years of somehow not facing that charge... and not being tried, until she screwed up again.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/stephanie-grisham-dui/

What's True
Grisham was arrested on suspicion of DUI in 2013 and 2015. She pleaded guilty to DUI in the 2015 case and was convicted.

What's False
Grisham was not convicted of DUI in the 2013 case. As part of a plea agreement, that charge was dropped.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Abrignac wrote:
I’d be much more concerned with actual DUI convictions instead of arrests. I thought in American one is innocent until proven guilty. Regardless, how does it hamper her ability to do her job. To say such is an attempt at character assignation instead of debating her actual job performance.

Victor, I do consider you a friend, but I also lose a certain amount of respect for you when you use arrest reports to disparage someone without saying whether they were found innocent, guilty or if the charges were dismissed before trial. You’re better than that.



No he's not...
fishinguitarman Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,148
No he’s not...
victor809 Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
victor809 wrote:
Not to point out the obvious, but if you're white and have an arrest record, odds are you were up to some sh#t, even if there wasn't a conviction.

But, to make you feel better, she has one DUI conviction (this is still more than the number of Press Conferences she has to her name). The other was "dropped as part of a plea agreement".. which means she was f$cking drunk.

More interesting, she didn't get her 2013 DUI dropped until she pleaded guilty to her 2015 DUI. So that was 2 years of somehow not facing that charge... and not being tried, until she screwed up again.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/stephanie-grisham-dui/

What's True
Grisham was arrested on suspicion of DUI in 2013 and 2015. She pleaded guilty to DUI in the 2015 case and was convicted.

What's False
Grisham was not convicted of DUI in the 2013 case. As part of a plea agreement, that charge was dropped.


My mistake. The 2013 case was NOT dropped because she plead guilty to the 2015 case. The 2013 DUI was dropped because she plead guilty to Reckless driving. She was driving with a suspended license (from a 2012 traffic citation) and had a BAC from blood tests of 0.105%, which is above the 0.08% DUI level. But the DUI was dropped.
Abrignac Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,216
victor809 wrote:
My mistake. The 2013 case was NOT dropped because she plead guilty to the 2015 case. The 2013 DUI was dropped because she plead guilty to Reckless driving. She was driving with a suspended license (from a 2012 traffic citation) and had a BAC from blood tests of 0.105%, which is above the 0.08% DUI level. But the DUI was dropped.


Once again, how has this affected her ability to do her job?

Hell, Ted Kennedy was a drunk who somehow was never arrested for DUI, but his wife was.
victor809 Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Abrignac wrote:
Once again, how has this affected her ability to do her job?

Hell, Ted Kennedy was a drunk who somehow was never arrested for DUI, but his wife was.


I never said it affected her ability to do her job.

I said my favorite description of her was ""Press Secretary" Stephanie Grisham, who still has more DUI arrests than press conferences to her name".

Now that description of her may imply she isn't doing her job. Since she's a Press Secretary who has still not done a single press conference..... but I never said her multiple instances of driving drunk impacted the job of press secretary.
Abrignac Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,216
victor809 wrote:
I never said it affected her ability to do her job.

I said my favorite description of her was ""Press Secretary" Stephanie Grisham, who still has more DUI arrests than press conferences to her name".

Now that description of her may imply she isn't doing her job. Since she's a Press Secretary who has still not done a single press conference..... but I never said her multiple instances of driving drunk impacted the job of press secretary.


So you were attacking someone’s character? IIRC you have repeatedly stated your disdain for Trump for doing exactly what you are doing.

Got it.

Pot meet kettle.
victor809 Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Abrignac wrote:
So you were attacking someone’s character? IIRC you have repeatedly stated your disdain for Trump for doing exactly what you are doing.

Got it.

Pot meet kettle.


I believe I was questioning the amount of work the "Press secretary" has done by comparing their number of press conferences to a small number. Say her DUI arrests.

I suppose I could have said "Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham, who still has more legs than press conferences to her name"

But everyone has two legs. Not a lot of press secretaries have 2 DUI arrests. So this makes it more personal.

Edit - And I'm not the president. Attacking someone's character is something that's done daily by 98.2% of the people on this board in one way or the other. We're private citizens and generally don't criticize each other for attacking other people's characters. that is NOT a trait we are supposed to see in a president.
Abrignac Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,216
victor809 wrote:
I believe I was questioning the amount of work the "Press secretary" has done by comparing their number of press conferences to a small number. Say her DUI arrests.

I suppose I could have said "Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham, who still has more legs than press conferences to her name"

But everyone has two legs. Not a lot of press secretaries have 2 DUI arrests. So this makes it more personal.


Which no doubt is what her supervisor has specified. So once again how are 2 arrests relevant to her job as the White House Press Secretary? Since you can’t tie the two together why do you feel compelled to link the two other than to cast a shadow over her character?

I’m not sure was is worse, her two DUI arrests or a person who uses that to belittle a person for whatever reason.
victor809 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Abrignac wrote:

I’m not sure was is worse, her two DUI arrests or a person who uses that to belittle a person for whatever reason.

My how cbid has changed.
Abrignac Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,216
No one is immune using poor manners, President or otherwise. It’s uncouth for ANYONE to do so, you and I included.
delta1 Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,753
how many birth certificates does she have???


...we need to see them all...
Abrignac Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,216
victor809 wrote:
My how cbid has changed.


Yes it is a dynamic gathering place. Regardless, my point is still relevant.
victor809 Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Abrignac wrote:
Which no doubt is what her supervisor has specified.


Her supervisor is trump.
She's hired to interact with the media.
She has not had a press conference (traditionally a daily thing) since hired. So you're saying our president no longer wants a press secretary to take questions from the media? why have the post then?
teedubbya Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Trump would never ever accuse anyone of something they were arrested for and not convicted.

You are right though wrong is wrong. Some in here justify things that are wrong to support their guy.
delta1 Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,753
he changed her title to Press Snark...seems her only job is to monitor Twitter and other media sites and react to any negative Trump comments with a snarky comeback...

she's the Chief Twit...

usually, peeps in her position put out press releases in addition to having briefings for gathered media... describing the POTUS's positive activities...but it'd be the same thing...Trump played golf today...remember when Trump openly complained about how often Obama played golf...what a joke...
Abrignac Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,216
victor809 wrote:
Her supervisor is trump.
She's hired to interact with the media.
She has not had a press conference (traditionally a daily thing) since hired. So you're saying our president no longer wants a press secretary to take questions from the media? why have the post then?


Who knows? On that point you and I totally agree.
delta1 Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,753
Trump wants to be the least transparent POTUS ever, so he can do whatever he wants without scrutiny, but says he's the most transparent ever, and his supporters believe him, even tho he does a lot of shady stuff...
Abrignac Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,216
teedubbya wrote:
Trump would never ever accuse anyone of something they were arrested for and not convicted.

You are right though wrong is wrong. Some in here justify things that are wrong to support their guy.


You’re correct. As you know my filter spends more time on the table than attached to me. I can assure you that if given the opportunity I’d tell Trump the same thing. Then I’d seek out Mr. Jones for expert advice regarding successfully eluding SSG agents and such.
victor809 Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Abrignac wrote:
Yes it is a dynamic gathering place. Regardless, my point is still relevant.


Somewhat.
Here's a post where you equate a DUI to randomly shooting a gun into a crowd.

http://www.cigarbid.com/...ldren-arent-accountable

Anthony wrote:
I see little difference between this and someone who indiscriminately fires a gun in the direction of a group of people.

Perhaps I'm leaving out some details, but apparently this person had way too much to drink then got behind the wheel. Absent proof that someone Mickey Finn'd him, I say his choices led to the death of 4 people. Just as if he pointed a gun and shot them, they are dead by his hand.

No jail time. What a **** joke.


Like I said... cbid has changed.
victor809 Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
teedubbya wrote:
Trump would never ever accuse anyone of something they were arrested for and not convicted.

You are right though wrong is wrong. Some in here justify things that are wrong to support their guy.


Don't miss the point where she was actually convicted. And the other was plead out (but guilty)
Abrignac Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,216
victor809 wrote:
Somewhat.
Here's a post where you equate a DUI to randomly shooting a gun into a crowd.

http://www.cigarbid.com/...ldren-arent-accountable



Like I said... cbid has changed.


I still feel that way. But, it’s still irrelevant in this circumstance. I’m not giving her a pass. It guilt of these offenses hould be prosecuted as such. This conversation is about something totally different.
victor809 Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Abrignac wrote:
I still feel that way. But, it’s still irrelevant in this circumstance. I’m not giving her a pass. It guilt of these offenses hould be prosecuted as such. This conversation is about something totally different.


Of course it is. I was just mocking her for not having done what she was hired to do. And used her history of driving under the influence as a lever with which to mock her.

You seem to think that bringing up her history is attacking her character.
You also think that someone driving under the influence is "indiscriminately firing a gun in the direction of a crowd"
I'm just curious why it's a bad thing to attack the character of someone who would repeatedly "fire a gun in the direction of a crowd".

But... it's a difference cbid. People are sensitive these days.
Tittums Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2019
Posts: 524
victor809 wrote:
Of course it is. I was just mocking her for not having done what she was hired to do. And used her history of driving under the influence as a lever with which to mock her.

You seem to think that bringing up her history is attacking her character.
You also think that someone driving under the influence is "indiscriminately firing a gun in the direction of a crowd"
I'm just curious why it's a bad thing to attack the character of someone who would repeatedly "fire a gun in the direction of a crowd".

But... it's a difference cbid. People are sensitive these days.


I will admit I do not know the woman's history (this is honestly the first I heard of it) but if all of the history you presented is true then it is the history of her character and is technically an attack on her character.

On the topic of lack of official press briefings, these died off back when the lovely Sarah Huckaboo Sanders was still in the position. If I am going to have to sit here and read a forum of people who refer to Trump as a child (among other things) then you kind of have to admit pretty much everything Jim Acosta does during one of the said briefings is nothing less of a childish temper tantrum.

The press briefings were always and odd one for me. As much as I love seeing Dems get stomped I find myself content with not having them at all if the trash like Jim Acosta no longer get to throw a temper tantrum on national television.
frankj1 Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
victor809 wrote:
I believe I was questioning the amount of work the "Press secretary" has done by comparing their number of press conferences to a small number. Say her DUI arrests.

I suppose I could have said "Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham, who still has more legs than press conferences to her name"

But everyone has two legs. Not a lot of press secretaries have 2 DUI arrests. So this makes it more personal.

Edit - And I'm not the president. Attacking someone's character is something that's done daily by 98.2% of the people on this board in one way or the other. We're private citizens and generally don't criticize each other for attacking other people's characters. that is NOT a trait we are supposed to see in a president.

I have more legs than arrests, and I've been arrested twice...

Frankie Tr!pod
Abrignac Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,216
victor809 wrote:
Of course it is. I was just mocking her for not having done what she was hired to do. And used her history of driving under the influence as a lever with which to mock her.

You seem to think that bringing up her history is attacking her character.
You also think that someone driving under the influence is "indiscriminately firing a gun in the direction of a crowd"
I'm just curious why it's a bad thing to attack the character of someone who would repeatedly "fire a gun in the direction of a crowd".

But... it's a difference cbid. People are sensitive these days.


I understand what is expected of a press secretary, but how you know she is not doing exactly what her supervisor hired her to do?

Edit: you have a history of pointing out arrest records for whatever reason. So I’m calling this how I see it.
Abrignac Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,216
frankj1 wrote:
I have more legs than arrests, and I've been arrested twice...

Frankie Tr!pod


Good thing you don’t have more arrests instead than you have legs.
victor809 Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Abrignac wrote:
I understand what is expected of a press secretary, but how you know she is not doing exactly what her supervisor hired her to do?


Very possibly she is.

Doesnt make the statement any less accurate.

And doesn't make attacking the character of someone who has repeatedly "indiscriminately fired a gun in the direction of a crowd" any less amusing to me....

But I understand. This is a much more sensitive cbid these days. We aren't supposed to say anything bad about our president or those "only the best people" he hired.

....****... I found old cbid threads that wanted people executed after their 3rd DUI. Someone should tell her she's only got one more freebie.
MACS Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,584
opelmanta1900 wrote:
Daily beast, huh? Was the vaginasagainsttrump.com site down or something?


LMFAO!!

That was funny... however, if Trump thinks he can say anything "off the record" in front of the media, he hasn't been paying attention for the last 3 years.
izonfire Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 12-09-2013
Posts: 8,642
frankj1 wrote:
I have more legs than arrests, and I've been arrested twice...

Frankie Tr!pod

And you got off every time, ya perv.
You have no conviction...
frankj1 Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
izonfire wrote:
And you got off every time, ya perv.
You have no conviction...

you're incorrigible.
MACS Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,584
Never been arrested.

Should have been a few times... but wasn't.
izonfire Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 12-09-2013
Posts: 8,642
frankj1 wrote:
you're incorrigible.

Guilty as charged...
victor809 Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Chit... here's an old thread where the consensus was that life in prison was suitable for 10 DUI convictions. She's 1/5 of the way there (well, technically 1/10th since she plead away the other, but the BAC was above 0.08)....

http://www.cigarbid.com/...Justified-Life-for-DWI-

But, that was the good old days of cbid, when the ONLY acceptable punishment for any criminal activity was landmines.

sigh... the good old days.
ZRX1200 Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,473
I’ll take Victor sticking his foot in his mouth again for $88 Alex
CelticBomber Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 05-03-2012
Posts: 6,786
delta1 wrote:
how many birth certificates does she have???


...we need to see them all...


Thanks, I just spit a mouthful of food on my monitor.
delta1 Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,753
PM your addy and I'll send you a package of wet wipes and a microfiber towel...apologies...
MACS Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,584
victor809 wrote:
Chit... here's an old thread where the consensus was that life in prison was suitable for 10 DUI convictions. She's 1/5 of the way there (well, technically 1/10th since she plead away the other, but the BAC was above 0.08)....

http://www.cigarbid.com/...Justified-Life-for-DWI-

But, that was the good old days of cbid, when the ONLY acceptable punishment for any criminal activity was landmines.

sigh... the good old days.


You think 2 DUI's is bad?? You should see the DUI count of some of the illegals we book into jail... you know, the ones we can't contact ICE about? Yeah... those illegal perpetually drunk assholes that CA refuses to deport. They'd rather wait until the corksuckers kill someone, first.
tailgater Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
If you get 2 DUI's and don't quit drinking then the state should make you quit driving instead.

victor809 Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
If you get 2 DUI's and don't quit drinking then the state should make you quit driving instead.



So you're saying twitler's press secretary should be legally prevented from driving?

Anyway, I just like to see how attitudes change at Cbid... people are always very convinced about their moral view.... and they're convinced it's the moral view they've always had.

but it's not.

A year or so ago I listened to a podcast about it. It's really interesting... essentially whatever you've decided your opinion is now on something... it's likely that you think you've always thought that way, that it's consistent with the moral view you've always had. But it may not be. Your brain literally will erase your prior view on something.

forums like Cbid, where we can go back and see exactly what a person's opinion was on different things and how it's changed are informative.

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2019/04/09/yanss-150-belief-change-blindness/
Brewha Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,143
victor809 wrote:
So you're saying twitler's press secretary should be legally prevented from driving?

Anyway, I just like to see how attitudes change at Cbid... people are always very convinced about their moral view.... and they're convinced it's the moral view they've always had.

but it's not.

A year or so ago I listened to a podcast about it. It's really interesting... essentially whatever you've decided your opinion is now on something... it's likely that you think you've always thought that way, that it's consistent with the moral view you've always had. But it may not be. Your brain literally will erase your prior view on something.

forums like Cbid, where we can go back and see exactly what a person's opinion was on different things and how it's changed are informative.

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2019/04/09/yanss-150-belief-change-blindness/

Personal growth is never ending - while many ignore it.
It is more comfortable to see things as unchanging.

Yet the whole world is in commotion, and each moment that passes changes us.

Daunting.

No wonder many do not participate.
victor809 Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Heh ... What makes you think people's changing position is always growth? I would argue some here now hold more xenophobic, immoral and/or irrational views than they did 15 years ago....
fishinguitarman Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,148
The common man who hates the common man 🤢🤮
Brewha Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,143
victor809 wrote:
Heh ... What makes you think people's changing position is always growth? I would argue some here now hold more xenophobic, immoral and/or irrational views than they did 15 years ago....

Not sure I implied that.

But, I would say that not all growth is good. Bad habits can grow, evil can grow, conservative mindsets can grow....
Users browsing this topic
Guest